輸尿管下段結石兩種治療方式成本和治療效果的分析
Cost and Outcome Analysis of Two Treatment Strategies for Patients with Distal Ureteral stone
中文摘要
本研究的目的以採用醫療資源耗用的方式，計算兩種治療方式的直接醫療成本和客觀的治療效 果參數。再從醫院的觀點比較那一種治療方式比較符合經濟效益。
從2002 至 2004 年於北區某醫學中心的回溯性研究，在結石< 1 公分的 849 位病患中，接受 輸尿管鏡碎石術治療有639 位，接受體外電震波碎石術治療有 210 位的病患，體外電震波碎 石術是使用Siemens 公司 Lithostar II 震波碎石機碎石。在結石 1 公分的 185 位病患中接受 體外電震波碎石術治療有74 位，接受輸尿管鏡碎石術治療有 111 位。在治療成功率方面，不 論結石< 1 公分或結石 1 公分這二組接受輸尿管鏡碎石術治療的成功率遠比接受體外電震波 碎石術的高，有統計學上的意義（94.5% vs. 81.9%, 86.5% vs. 62.2%, P < 0.001）。但 是輸尿管鏡碎石術治療的750 位病患中，有 29 位（3.86%）於治療後有併發症發生。
成本的計算是從醫院的觀點、以資源耗用的方式計算直接醫療成本。單位成本是根據健保醫令清 單和各醫療單位的成本收費比計算。單次治療的成本當結石< 1 公分，體外電震波碎石術平均 醫療成本為22884 元而輸尿管鏡碎石術治療為 30309 元。當結石 1 公分，接受體外碎石治 療的平均醫療成本為22494 元而輸尿管鏡碎石術為 30911 元。而全部治療費用是利用決策分 析模式計算，結果無論結石的大小，採用體外震波碎石術治療的預期成本耗費比較少（36672 元vs. 37621 元, 30315 元 vs. 32155 元）而醫院的盈餘比較高（p < 0.001）。
結論︰從醫院的觀點，採用醫療資源耗用的方式計算體外電震波碎石術與輸尿管鏡碎石術兩種 方式在治療輸尿管下段結石時的直接治療成本以體外電震波碎石術的成本耗費較少，醫院的盈 餘較高。但是在臨床的效果方面，輸尿管鏡碎石術有較高的結石擴清率，碎石排清所耗費的時 間也較短。
英文摘要
The aim of the study is to estimate the direct medical cost, based on resources
utilization and objective outcomes of these two treatment modalities for distal ureteral stone. Economic analysis was done from the point of view of health providers.
From Jan. 2002 through Dec. 2004, 1034 distal ureteral calculi were treated using either ESWL (Siemens Lithostar II electromagnetic ESWL in 284 patients) or
ureteroscopy (750 patients). Patient age and stone size were similar among the groups.
All ESWL treatments were performed with the patient under intravenous sedation and on outpatient basis. Stone free rate were 62.2% for stone size larger than 1 cm, and 81.9% for stone size less than 1 cm. Retreatment was required in 9 cases (19.6%) and 12 cases (7.0%) respectively. The ureteroscopy treatments were performed under spinal or general anesthesia and on inpatient basis. Stone free rate were 86.5% for larger stone and 94.5% for smaller one. Retreatment was also required in 5 cases
(5.2%) and 6 cases (1.49%) respectively.
The direct medical cost of treatment was estimated by resources utilization from the viewpoint of health provider and derived by adjusting for department-specific cost-to- charge ratios. The decision analysis model was constructed to estimate the expected treatment costs of each strategy. The successful rates of each treatment modality were determined from outcomes in this series. Overall ESWL was less costly than
ureteroscopy in single treatment cost and expected treatment cost for any stone size. A cost difference between the 2 modalities for smaller stone and larger was 7425 NTD and 7417 NTD for single treatment cost, respectively. For smaller stone, the expected cost of ESWL and ureteroscopy were 30315 NTD and 32155 NTD, respectively. For larger stone, the expected cost of ESWL and ureteroscopy were 36672 NTD and 37621 NTD, respectively. The high inpatient cost and professional fee is responsible for the high treatment cost associated with ureteroscopy. From the benefit standpoint, ESWL was a few thousand dollars more than ureteroscopy for hospital.
Conclusions: From the viewpoint of hospital, ESWL is less cost expense and more benefit treatment strategy for distal ureteral stones by resources utilization. However, ureteroscopy is more cost effective in stone clearance.
